Main menu

Post navigation

Large Galaxies In Deep Space Overturns Previous Models

Using the Subaru telescope in Hawaii, astronomers observed an astounding phenomena which has surprised many Cosmologists, huge galaxies found in very deep space which are the same size if not bigger than the ones found much closer to Earth!

From a creationist point of view, the Hubble space telescope already observe mature galaxies back in the mid-1990s. But what lacked in that observation with Hubble was measurements of those mature galaxies, now at last or should I say, this is just the beginning, the measurements are now obtainable with possible improvements in the future! And to no surprise it confirms way more of the creationist model, than the variants of models Cosmologists have been using.

A Cosmologist who goes under the name eelo2, and who has stated he has taught at many Universities. He likes to try and correct me in such matters in his materialistic view point especially when it comes to his favorite area in science…Here is what he had said in a previous post of mine concerning this very topic about observing mature galaxies in deep space …

“As for your comments on the Hubble Deep Field, these I’ve already refuted in a comment to an earlier post. This is the sort of science I do, and you seem not to understand these obsevations at all, and are drawing very odd conclusions.

The lifetime of a star, especially the brightest ones, is (sometimes much) smaller than the age of the universe, so you get young AND old stars at early epochs as well as at later ones (like the present time).”

He believed he had refuted me but really he did not. The new finding we currently see proves my conclusions about mature galaxies in deep space are more accurate than his materialistic response. The hierarchical model (another term for gradualism) in which he and many others in his field goes by is not correct, and new observations as well as future ones from space are just beginning to prove them wrong.Nature to a certain degree points this out as well…

“The ancient galaxies should have been much smaller, at only a fifth of today’s mass, based on galaxy-formation models that predict slow, protracted growth.”

“Slurping up cold streams of star fuel, some of the Universe’s first galaxies got fat quickly, new observations suggest. The findings could overturn existing models for the formation and evolution of galaxies that predict their slow and steady growth through mergers.”

“That was the reason for the surprise – that it disagrees so radically with what the predictions told us we should be seeing,” says Chris Collins of Liverpool John Moores University in Birkenhead, UK.”

When an observation falsifies naturalism, major tweaking goes on for the purpose of trying to save it’s base core of the model. One suggestion of a tweak concerning the rapid growth of the galaxies is being alleged to have been created by “veins of cold gas, clinging to filaments of dark matter”which nobody has seen or actually knows what dark matter is let alone trying to explain it’s behavior in relation to other objects as well. No way could this invisible matter play a role in speeding up the process of mature galaxies in deep space.

Proponents of evolution are looking for evidence and explanations of a supposedly old Universe but what they are finding is contrary to what was predicted in a radical sense. This new discovery in deep space confirms once again the Bible and overturns their previous models (which is why evolution gets pretty complex). Chalk this one up as another evolutionary hypothesis overturned by observational data!

Related

“He believed he had refuted me but really he did not. The new finding we currently see proves my conclusions about mature galaxies in deep space are more accurate than his materialistic response.”

That’s me then, giving a ‘materialist response’ (whatever that may be). I still have no idea what you mean with ‘mature’ galaxies: Chris Collins (who I chatted to a few weeks ago) says no such thing. He only says that galaxies grow fast at early times, but this observations (dubbed ‘downsizing’) is no surprise at all. My own models show this sort of thing happening. The main difference is between luminosity and mass, if you care to look into this a little further. And even if there are ‘mature’ galaxies at early times, that does not mean that ALL galaxies are ‘mature’ at early times. You really are jumping conclusions in an incredible way.

I’m afraid you again show a complete ignorance of this topic, and your last two paragraphs are highly inappropriate. The universe is still old (just look at globular clusters, for example) …

So what you are claiming, Nature which is a well respected publication within your community is lying when they quoted Chris Collins as saying, “That was the reason for the surprise — that it disagrees so radically with what the predictions told us we should be seeing.”Just because he may have conversed with you in general, didn’t mean he didn’t say the new discovery wasn’t a surprise.

You state, “ALL galaxies are ‘mature’ at early times.”No, I never made such a claimed “all” galaxies are mature in deep space. In fact, I never knew these galaxies existed until Hubble discovered many of them back in the 90s. There are also young looking galaxies which are suppose to be older looking in space according to how they so-called; evolved. So we do have an amazing variety. I firmly believe we will be able to observe more mature galaxies which are positioned very deep in space once Hubble is replaced with a more powerful James Webb Space Telescope. But that’s not to say, we might not be able to observe more with better vision from Hubble in the meantime.

It’s appears to me, you give the impression the likes of Avishai Dekel Hebrew University who stated; “We have a whole different story now about how galaxies form” were looking at outdated models because you claim your models have been showing this all along. Have your models predicted; “A massive star a million times brighter than our sun explode way too early in its life?” The story is located in space.com. I was just wondering considering you claim your models are ahead of mainstream evolutionary science.

There is no new discovery …. ‘downsizing’ is a pretty old idea, shown again by new observations. That’s all.
No-one is lying here, but there is a little hyping going on – remember that Nature is not just a standard science journal, it does news stories as well.

Your last paragraph I do not understand at all – where do these quotes come from ? Are you just saying supernovae happen too early or something like that ? They should actually happen early (as well as in current times) …

Dekel is not producing outdated models, he simply has different ingredients in his models, most of which are very good indeed. And it is actually Dekel who showed a few years ago that downsizing, what your original story is about, is not a problem at all. AGAIN: it is the difference between the evolution of luminosity and mass that produces this.

Finally: why do you always keep quoting people instead of making your own arguments ?

Of course I am not claim that Nature is lying. The observations are new, but the idea of ‘downsizing’ is not. AGAIN: it is the difference between the evolution of luminosity and matter that produces this. No big deal. And it is actually Dekel that showed this again a couple of years ago.

Remember that Nature is not just a standard science journal, it does news stories as well. And you know about news stories: hyping is often a part of that.

My own models are nothing special: they do as well or badly as other current models, but simply have different ingredients. We all try different things to improve them: that is science !!

Your last paragraph I do not understand at all: where do these quotes come from, and what are you trying to say yourself ?
Why do you always quote people instead of making your own arguments ? Think for yourself !